Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - Did you happen to see this link with the pictures of Amanda's Court appearance last Saturday, she seemed relaxed and cool calm and collected didn't she and must know that she has the crooked Italian Judiciary on the back foot, it's noticeable isn't it that her legal team have upped their game recently particularly where they exposed the so called 'key eye witness' as a homeless fraud, drug addict and alcoholic:

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/gallery.asp?SubID=6512&page=46&GTitle=Amanda%20Knox%20in%20court&pubdate=3/26/2011

 

 

 

She was calm no doubt about that. I really hope her legal team can do a good job. I think she needs the opportunity to get a jury that will look at the evidence nice and close. I am not saying all the evidence is not against her, but there were some questions and I think she should get the chance to prove that it was not her. We will see.

 

Loose you wanted me to talk about the evidence well let's start. First the murder weapon. Now my first question is why does it not fit the outline on the bed? Next why in the world would they have brought the murder weapon back to the house that the police would search? They would have to be really stupid to do that. The other thing is it only had DNA that would have been transferred from something else, so we really don't know if it was the right DNA or not. I say innocent until proven guilty. In this case guilt is not proven. There can be no doubt in any ones minds, and there is.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Brounmoney

[missunderstood]

Brounmoney - Did you happen to see this link with the pictures of Amanda's Court appearance last Saturday, she seemed relaxed and cool calm and collected didn't she and must know that she has the crooked Italian Judiciary on the back foot, it's noticeable isn't it that her legal team have upped their game recently particularly where they exposed the so called 'key eye witness' as a homeless fraud, drug addict and alcoholic:

 

http://www.seattlepi...bdate=3/26/2011

 

. I say innocent until proven guilty. In this case guilt is not proven. There can be no doubt in any ones minds, and there is.

 

The law in the UK and I believe Italy states you are innocent until proven guilty ,BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and there can also be no doubts in anyone's minds that she didn't commit murder either. I'm afraid that her odd behavior and the frequency in which she changed her alibi could well mean that no jury will ever give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - Did you happen to see this link with the pictures of Amanda's Court appearance last Saturday, she seemed relaxed and cool calm and collected didn't she and must know that she has the crooked Italian Judiciary on the back foot, it's noticeable isn't it that her legal team have upped their game recently particularly where they exposed the so called 'key eye witness' as a homeless fraud, drug addict and alcoholic:

 

http://www.seattlepi...bdate=3/26/2011

 

. I say innocent until proven guilty. In this case guilt is not proven. There can be no doubt in any ones minds, and there is.

 

The law in the UK and I believe Italy states you are innocent until proven guilty ,BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and there can also be no doubts in anyone's minds that she didn't commit murder either. I'm afraid that her odd behavior and the frequency in which she changed her alibi could well mean that no jury will ever give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I will agree with that. My only problem is the I don't think the evidence backs up her odd behaivor, but I think her behavior could be what puts her in jail for the rest of her life. I am not saying for sure she did not do it, but there are just too many problems with the evidence.

[missunderstood]

Brounmoney - Did you happen to see this link with the pictures of Amanda's Court appearance last Saturday, she seemed relaxed and cool calm and collected didn't she and must know that she has the crooked Italian Judiciary on the back foot, it's noticeable isn't it that her legal team have upped their game recently particularly where they exposed the so called 'key eye witness' as a homeless fraud, drug addict and alcoholic:

 

http://www.seattlepi...bdate=3/26/2011

 

. I say innocent until proven guilty. In this case guilt is not proven. There can be no doubt in any ones minds, and there is.

 

The law in the UK and I believe Italy states you are innocent until proven guilty ,BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and there can also be no doubts in anyone's minds that she didn't commit murder either. I'm afraid that her odd behavior and the frequency in which she changed her alibi could well mean that no jury will ever give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I will agree with that. My only problem is the I don't think the evidence backs up her odd behaivor, but I think her behavior could be what puts her in jail for the rest of her life. I am not saying for sure she did not do it, but there are just too many problems with the evidence.

 

 

The dilemma facing the people responsible for deciding Amanda's fate is, do they take a chance on releasing a possible murderer who may kill again, and have it on their conscience for the rest of their lives, or do they play safe and keep a rather odd, but possible innocent girl locked up for a very long time.

 

I can honestly say that if I was put into that situation I haven't a clue what my response would be.Have you?

[Rhodes]

Brounmoney - This is quite an interesting Blog, have you seen it before and have you ever been to Seattle, I've heard it is a fascinating city:

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2007/12/08/amanda-knox-whats-seattle-got-to-do-with-it/

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - Did you happen to see this link with the pictures of Amanda's Court appearance last Saturday, she seemed relaxed and cool calm and collected didn't she and must know that she has the crooked Italian Judiciary on the back foot, it's noticeable isn't it that her legal team have upped their game recently particularly where they exposed the so called 'key eye witness' as a homeless fraud, drug addict and alcoholic:

 

http://www.seattlepi...bdate=3/26/2011

 

. I say innocent until proven guilty. In this case guilt is not proven. There can be no doubt in any ones minds, and there is.

 

The law in the UK and I believe Italy states you are innocent until proven guilty ,BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and there can also be no doubts in anyone's minds that she didn't commit murder either. I'm afraid that her odd behavior and the frequency in which she changed her alibi could well mean that no jury will ever give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I will agree with that. My only problem is the I don't think the evidence backs up her odd behaivor, but I think her behavior could be what puts her in jail for the rest of her life. I am not saying for sure she did not do it, but there are just too many problems with the evidence.

 

 

The dilemma facing the people responsible for deciding Amanda's fate is, do they take a chance on releasing a possible murderer who may kill again, and have it on their conscience for the rest of their lives, or do they play safe and keep a rather odd, but possible innocent girl locked up for a very long time.

 

I can honestly say that if I was put into that situation I haven't a clue what my response would be.Have you?

 

 

I have no idea what I would do. This is the crazy thing about the legal system. I mean I have heard the saying before better to have a guilty person on the streets than have someone that is innocent in jail. I am not sure if I can believe that. If they were going about the case the way the US would handle this case she would already be back in Seattle. Now I am not saying I agree with that, but the evidence is just not solid enough to be held in a US court of law. Like I said with the knife that evidence would have been taken out. I understand that the US has gotten it wrong many of times, but for the most part it is a good system. I guess from the evidence alone I would have to let her go, but her behavior would really make me question if she did it or not. It would be really hard to say innocent or guilty.

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - This is quite an interesting Blog, have you seen it before and have you ever been to Seattle, I've heard it is a fascinating city:

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2007/12/08/amanda-knox-whats-seattle-got-to-do-with-it/

 

I have checked out the blog like once. I went to Seattle just last summer. I loved it . I went in the summer so it was not raining, and it was about 75 or 80 degrees it wad perfect. I would not mind living there. It is just a really nice place.

[Rhodes]

Brounmoney - Have you seen this Youtube link containing a very interesting 'Northwest Nights' radio interview with a highly regarded forensic expert called Greg Hampikian who has been advising Amanda's parents and who clearly can't believe how the case has been handled by the incompetent and totally clueless Italians. Have a good weekend:

 

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - Have you seen this Youtube link containing a very interesting 'Northwest Nights' radio interview with a highly regarded forensic expert called Greg Hampikian who has been advising Amanda's parents and who clearly can't believe how the case has been handled by the incompetent and totally clueless Italians. Have a good weekend:

 

 

 

Great link Rhodes. What was interesting to me was the fact that the only thing that is keeping Amanda in prison is the knife. I never thought about that. That is the only thing with her DNA on it, and the only thing they can get her for. Loose and everyone else want to bring up her character and that people placed her here and people placed her there on the night of the crime, but none of that is keeper her in prison just the knife. To this point I don't think that the knife has enough evidence to keep her in prison.

 

 

Loose I brought this up the first day I posted, but you threw it out. I check this out there are lab standards that have to he use when checking out evidence. These standards are in questions, and now the independant forensic company will see if they did or not.

[Rhodes]

Loose I brought this up the first day I posted, but you threw it out. I check this out there are lab standards that have to he use when checking out evidence. These standards are in questions, and now the independant forensic company will see if they did or not.

Brounmoney - I made my post with the excellent Greg Hampikian radio interview at 9.00 this morning but it was only just (at 5.30pm British time) put up on the Forum so apologies for that. I don't think you should waste your time addressing Loosely in this fashion as it's obvious what sort of answer you are going to get, he must be the only person left on the planet who thinks Amanda is guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder

[Loose]

Clifford dear boy, I love how you continually mention me in your posts, are you missing me or something?

 

If I ever thought you'd actually discuss anything sensibly I'd give it a go but you steadfastly refuse to, just look at my recent post where I even conceded that I was unsure of the prosecution's assigning of motive for Knox but you left that alone like a hot potato didn't you? What are you afraid of there I wonder....

 

 

Still, let's give it a bash from another angle and please feel free to discuss rather than run scared as you usually do, ignoring a point so that you can snipe from the cover of your internet cafe counter.

 

Of course we have the recent news that the forensic evidence is unable to be tested again, but what's changed? The position was ALWAYS that there was too little material to be able to test again, that it would never fulfill the exacting standards that american courts like to impose (obviously since they have different litigation standards) - so again, whats changed? Nowt much of a victory there is it?

 

Now, what is interesting is this media exposure of "the witness" being unsure of his evidence, that he is homeless, a drunk. Has this been established in court? That would be interesting.

 

And for me the question of how much will it take to convince the court of her innocence? How much did the original verdict rely on the low amount of forensic evidence? How much did it rely on the "witness, the drunk"? What does the court think of the conflicting stories given by Knox, her apparent lies, the bloody footprints, her lies over how often and under what circumstances Meredith normally locked her bedroom door?

 

Does the court have to also find her boyfriend innocent too since Amanda's story relies on her alibi of being with him on the night and at present there's nothing much that can get him off with his bloody footprint in the bathroom is there? If he is guilty, so is she and vice a versa, surely?

 

Now Rhodes, if you can discuss those points and tick them off satisfactorily perhaps you are serious about the case or is this just another pathetic Rhodes campaign a la Kenneth Noyes? Pretty quiet about that one now aren't you?

 

Hmmm...

[Brounmoney]

Clifford dear boy, I love how you continually mention me in your posts, are you missing me or something?

 

If I ever thought you'd actually discuss anything sensibly I'd give it a go but you steadfastly refuse to, just look at my recent post where I even conceded that I was unsure of the prosecution's assigning of motive for Knox but you left that alone like a hot potato didn't you? What are you afraid of there I wonder....

 

 

Still, let's give it a bash from another angle and please feel free to discuss rather than run scared as you usually do, ignoring a point so that you can snipe from the cover of your internet cafe counter.

 

Of course we have the recent news that the forensic evidence is unable to be tested again, but what's changed? The position was ALWAYS that there was too little material to be able to test again, that it would never fulfill the exacting standards that american courts like to impose (obviously since they have different litigation standards) - so again, whats changed? Nowt much of a victory there is it?

 

Now, what is interesting is this media exposure of "the witness" being unsure of his evidence, that he is homeless, a drunk. Has this been established in court? That would be interesting.

 

And for me the question of how much will it take to convince the court of her innocence? How much did the original verdict rely on the low amount of forensic evidence? How much did it rely on the "witness, the drunk"? What does the court think of the conflicting stories given by Knox, her apparent lies, the bloody footprints, her lies over how often and under what circumstances Meredith normally locked her bedroom door?

 

Does the court have to also find her boyfriend innocent too since Amanda's story relies on her alibi of being with him on the night and at present there's nothing much that can get him off with his bloody footprint in the bathroom is there? If he is guilty, so is she and vice a versa, surely?

 

Now Rhodes, if you can discuss those points and tick them off satisfactorily perhaps you are serious about the case or is this just another pathetic Rhodes campaign a la Kenneth Noyes? Pretty quiet about that one now aren't you?

 

Hmmm...

 

 

I will discuss this with you. There are not just American standards. If there were only American standards and the rest of the world had there own how could scientist prove anything. There has to be world standards. I am not sure what more to say.

 

My point today was that yes there were many other things that went into arresting Amanda Knox, but none of which can be used in court. The only evidence they had on her was the knife. That is all I was saying. Yes she had a crazy way of handling things, but you can not use that in court.

 

I ask you a question like a week ago about the knife, but I guess you don't think it is worth talking about. Whatever your loss. You can act like you are a better man than to have a discussion with me. That is fine. I would love to debate with you, but you are too good for that. Stop putting me and Rhodes together on every thing. There are things that we disagree on. Just because we both feel that she is innocent does not mean me agree on every thing. Let's see if you can have an adult debate about this.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Brounmoney

[Loose]

Stop putting me and Rhodes together on every thing. There are things that we disagree on. Just because we both feel that she is innocent does not mean me agree on every thing. Let's see if you can have an adult debate about this.

 

Are you some sort of idiot? Where did I mention you in my post?

 

If you can't discuss this sensibly it's no skin off my nose. If you want to take my points one by one instead of just dismissing them then carry on, you prove nothing with your level of debate, pretty much Rhodes standard to be honest.

[Brounmoney]

Clifford dear boy, I love how you continually mention me in your posts, are you missing me or something?

 

If I ever thought you'd actually discuss anything sensibly I'd give it a go but you steadfastly refuse to, just look at my recent post where I even conceded that I was unsure of the prosecution's assigning of motive for Knox but you left that alone like a hot potato didn't you? What are you afraid of there I wonder....

 

 

Still, let's give it a bash from another angle and please feel free to discuss rather than run scared as you usually do, ignoring a point so that you can snipe from the cover of your internet cafe counter.

 

Of course we have the recent news that the forensic evidence is unable to be tested again, but what's changed? The position was ALWAYS that there was too little material to be able to test again, that it would never fulfill the exacting standards that american courts like to impose (obviously since they have different litigation standards) - so again, whats changed? Nowt much of a victory there is it?

 

Now, what is interesting is this media exposure of "the witness" being unsure of his evidence, that he is homeless, a drunk. Has this been established in court? That would be interesting.

 

And for me the question of how much will it take to convince the court of her innocence? How much did the original verdict rely on the low amount of forensic evidence? How much did it rely on the "witness, the drunk"? What does the court think of the conflicting stories given by Knox, her apparent lies, the bloody footprints, her lies over how often and under what circumstances Meredith normally locked her bedroom door?

 

Does the court have to also find her boyfriend innocent too since Amanda's story relies on her alibi of being with him on the night and at present there's nothing much that can get him off with his bloody footprint in the bathroom is there? If he is guilty, so is she and vice a versa, surely?

 

Now Rhodes, if you can discuss those points and tick them off satisfactorily perhaps you are serious about the case or is this just another pathetic Rhodes campaign a la Kenneth Noyes? Pretty quiet about that one now aren't you?

 

Hmmm...

 

It does look as though you have given some good thoughts. I do agree that if one is innocent then both have to be. There is just so much in answered. Like I said there was only one real thing they could get her on the knife. If that is the only they have now it seems that may not be good enough. Look I don't want to fight with you I want to have a good debate. I think we feel the same about a lot of things in this case, but we don't know how to agree on them.

 

What do you think about the homeless man? I don't find him to be the best witness. Do you think they should still be able to use him?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Brounmoney

[Loose]

Alright, I'll risk engaging with you again against my better judgement but to be honest I get all the prevarication, avoidance and distraction tactics I can possibly enjoy from Rhodes so tbh you're on notice.

 

I'm happy to concede the knife, never happy with it myself, it was either used as a secondary weapon or it's just a red herring. The real knife along with the keys, clothes, footwear etc all hidden, destroyed, at the bottom of a river long ago.

 

I'm not content with the motive either, I kind of understand that it's possible for animosity to grow over slights and squabbles but they wouldn't annoy me. Who knows though these days with kids prepared to kill at the drop of a glance.

 

Now the forensic evidence, the reason I contrast it with US standards is that they ARE different. You say science is science everywhere but due to separate countries such as the US developing their own precedents for testing where the amount that has to be available to prosecution, defence, potential appeals in murder cases where forensic evidence has to be preserved for potential decades because of death row appeals it is altogether different for some european countries. You will either have to concede that DNA testing was first developed in Europe, laboratories are thoroughly reliable AND considered impartial to a degree where there is rarely any contention or not. The fact that there was so little DNA forensic evidence available on two items was ALWAYS known and hasn't changed despite the much trumpeted media attention now. I can't discount it because of the preceding,

 

The witness who says he saw Knox and Solecito on the night now seems confused, thats not good enough really is it? But has it been reported accurately? Is the court convinced? We will have to wait.

 

So, for me what remains is the fact that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were found guilty and the following weight of evidence has not been explained away, unless the prosecution can I'm not convinced that the court will overturn the conviction:-

 

The evidence against Amanda and her boyfriend is still overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they where, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollcito have credible alibis despite THREE attempts each. All of the other people HAD credible alibis that COULD be verified. - Innocent people do not give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to police, would you?

The DNA didn't miraculously place itself in the most incriminating of places.

Plenty of Sollecito's DNA was found on Merediths Bra Clasp, his DNA was tested by two separate labs and of the 17 identifying loci tested his profile matched ALL 17. Due to storage conditions and time, that cannot be tested again but I don't think anything can contest two separate tests.

Amanda's DNA was also said to be on the bra, I can't find the report which says so but can't contest it, can anyone?

Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife in question, so lets look at how that is proved. The double DNA was identified by three different experts - Dr Stefanoni, Dr. Biondo and Professor Tonicelli. So why do we know that somehow the knife was involved although there are doubts (particularly with you) about how it fit any patterns is because Solleciito lied twice about accidentally pricking Amanda's hand with it whilst cooking - her DNA was found on the blade.

There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's BLOOD in THREE different locations in the house. Once, perhaps explainable and an accident, three times just bloody careless if you ask me.

Knox had tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom - from where? Knox had tracked Meredith's blood into the hallway - from where? She tracked it into her own room and the other tenant, Filomena's room, her DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood where the supposed "break-in" was staged - again, where from? The DNA was again mixed in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three separate places in the bathroom - so how when Amanda stated that she never entered Meredith's room - the door was locked remember?

Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and straight out of the house so he didn't stage the "break-in" or go into the bathroom.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched Sollecito's foot PRECISELY but couldn't possibly belong to Guede. Both Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by the use of luminol in the hallway.

Knox, Guede and Sollecito - the same three people who lied continually and variously to the police, all three are implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence in the footprints and DNA material quite apart from that on the knife and bra clasp, the blood footprints, the DNA mixed with the blood and the footprints have not been contested by the defence because it cannot be.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6th November 2007 - she may contest that she was abused but that claim is laughable despite people slurring Italian police, believe me it just wouldn't happen. People claim corruption amongst Italian authorities, thats' just a hangover from the bad old days and from a completely different region of Italy. What most people do not appreciate is that Italy is two countries, the North and the South. The South suffered various corruption cases years ago, the mafia, the magistrates, even the police but not the North and not in this day and age. After Knox was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi she stated on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

Amanda accused an innocent man of murdering Meredith - her boss Diya Lumumba, despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She never recanted her lies the whole time that he was in prison, she admiited that it was her fault that he was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10th November 2007.

Lets just come back to forensic evidence for what doesn't fit in Knox's defence claims. - Sollecito's own forensic expert, Professor Vinci found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra.

So, if you believe that a bit of smoke and mirrors tricks by the media and Knox's defence team wipes all of that away, and let's be honest, it's not even scratching the surface then that's up to you. I understand why Rhodesy loves winding all of this up, he gets a kick from it but he doesn't believe what he says, he knows its all just a game to him.

Trouble is, he never remembers that Meredith died a horrible death and deserves better.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Loose

[Brounmoney]

Alright, I'll risk engaging with you again against my better judgement but to be honest I get all the prevarication, avoidance and distraction tactics I can possibly enjoy from Rhodes so tbh you're on notice.

 

I'm happy to concede the knife, never happy with it myself, it was either used as a secondary weapon or it's just a red herring. The real knife along with the keys, clothes, footwear etc all hidden, destroyed, at the bottom of a river long ago.

 

I'm not content with the motive either, I kind of understand that it's possible for animosity to grow over slights and squabbles but they wouldn't annoy me. Who knows though these days with kids prepared to kill at the drop of a glance.

 

Now the forensic evidence, the reason I contrast it with US standards is that they ARE different. You say science is science everywhere but due to separate countries such as the US developing their own precedents for testing where the amount that has to be available to prosecution, defence, potential appeals in murder cases where forensic evidence has to be preserved for potential decades because of death row appeals it is altogether different for some european countries. You will either have to concede that DNA testing was first developed in Europe, laboratories are thoroughly reliable AND considered impartial to a degree where there is rarely any contention or not. The fact that there was so little DNA forensic evidence available on two items was ALWAYS known and hasn't changed despite the much trumpeted media attention now. I can't discount it because of the preceding,

 

The witness who says he saw Knox and Solecito on the night now seems confused, thats not good enough really is it? But has it been reported accurately? Is the court convinced? We will have to wait.

 

So, for me what remains is the fact that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend were found guilty and the following weight of evidence has not been explained away, unless the prosecution can I'm not convinced that the court will overturn the conviction:-

 

The evidence against Amanda and her boyfriend is still overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they where, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollcito have credible alibis despite THREE attempts each. All of the other people HAD credible alibis that COULD be verified. - Innocent people do not give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to police, would you?

The DNA didn't miraculously place itself in the most incriminating of places.

Plenty of Sollecito's DNA was found on Merediths Bra Clasp, his DNA was tested by two separate labs and of the 17 identifying loci tested his profile matched ALL 17. Due to storage conditions and time, that cannot be tested again but I don't think anything can contest two separate tests.

Amanda's DNA was also said to be on the bra, I can't find the report which says so but can't contest it, can anyone?

Amanda's DNA was found on the handle of the knife in question, so lets look at how that is proved. The double DNA was identified by three different experts - Dr Stefanoni, Dr. Biondo and Professor Tonicelli. So why do we know that somehow the knife was involved although there are doubts (particularly with you) about how it fit any patterns is because Solleciito lied twice about accidentally pricking Amanda's hand with it whilst cooking - her DNA was found on the blade.

There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's BLOOD in THREE different locations in the house. Once, perhaps explainable and an accident, three times just bloody careless if you ask me.

Knox had tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom - from where? Knox had tracked Meredith's blood into the hallway - from where? She tracked it into her own room and the other tenant, Filomena's room, her DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood where the supposed "break-in" was staged - again, where from? The DNA was again mixed in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three separate places in the bathroom - so how when Amanda stated that she never entered Meredith's room - the door was locked remember?

Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and straight out of the house so he didn't stage the "break-in" or go into the bathroom.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched Sollecito's foot PRECISELY but couldn't possibly belong to Guede. Both Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by the use of luminol in the hallway.

Knox, Guede and Sollecito - the same three people who lied continually and variously to the police, all three are implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence in the footprints and DNA material quite apart from that on the knife and bra clasp, the blood footprints, the DNA mixed with the blood and the footprints have not been contested by the defence because it cannot be.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6th November 2007 - she may contest that she was abused but that claim is laughable despite people slurring Italian police, believe me it just wouldn't happen. People claim corruption amongst Italian authorities, thats' just a hangover from the bad old days and from a completely different region of Italy. What most people do not appreciate is that Italy is two countries, the North and the South. The South suffered various corruption cases years ago, the mafia, the magistrates, even the police but not the North and not in this day and age. After Knox was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi she stated on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

Amanda accused an innocent man of murdering Meredith - her boss Diya Lumumba, despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She never recanted her lies the whole time that he was in prison, she admiited that it was her fault that he was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10th November 2007.

Lets just come back to forensic evidence for what doesn't fit in Knox's defence claims. - Sollecito's own forensic expert, Professor Vinci found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra.

So, if you believe that a bit of smoke and mirrors tricks by the media and Knox's defence team wipes all of that away, and let's be honest, it's not even scratching the surface then that's up to you. I understand why Rhodesy loves winding all of this up, he gets a kick from it but he doesn't believe what he says, he knows its all just a game to him.

Trouble is, he never remembers that Meredith died a horrible death and deserves better.

 

Now loose you wrote a lot of stuff here so I am going to do my best talk about all of it, but if I miss something it is only because you wrote so much.

 

You do have some good stuff. You started out talking about murder weapon and the keys and clothes. The only thing that I can say is why would they destroy all the other things but not her phones? Why would they just throw them somewhere? If they were smart enough to destroy the other stuff I would think they would destroy the phones as well.

 

The next thing that you brought up was the homeless man. I really don't know why they used him in the first place. He really never seemed like he knew what he was talking about. From what you said I am not sure if you like him as a witness or not. I am not sold on him, but hey not my call.

 

Alright now comes the evidencee in the house. With the bra still not sold on how it was handled. The video of the people picking it up and passing it just not the way to handle evidence. I don't think it should be used as evidence. Now I have to question the other evidence just because the way that was handled, but we can not do that. We have what we have. Good ole Rudy's DNA is all over the house so it really does not have a way out. in the other two the DNA can be explained some what. Now I am not saying we should, but with them being there so much their DNA would be there. I will give you though that what they have is a lot. It does not change my opinion, but it sure backs your side of things. Not much I can debate with you on this.

 

I still believe that the break in was not stage. There is nothing here to prove either side of this discussion. I think that when they first got the the house the police that is messed with the evidence and made it unclear if it was staged or not.

 

Her changing her story is stupid of her, but I will not believe that she was not pressured into saying she was there. This is the one thing that I will fight to the end on. Now with that being said she may have done it and the pressure made her spill the beans, but she was pressure into saying what she said. You can not believe that we will disagree on this. I am find with that.

 

If I missed anything just please let me know I will be glad to talk about it. There are so many holes on both sides that the truth is been so mixed up we really have no idea. Thanks for posting the good points lets keep it up.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Brounmoney

[Loose]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are taking this seriously for now but tbh it's pretty difficult.

 

The phones? Where does that come from? Whose phones? Amanda's? Sollecito's? You'll have to explain I'm afraid.

 

Sincerely, I'm not going to debate it with you, I've laid out why the evidence is still overwhelming and you can't contest any of it.

 

Knox claims she was with Sollecito, if she is telling the truth then why does Sollecito deny it?

 

How did Knox's bloody footprints appear all over the house outside a locked room with Meredith's body in it which Knox claimed she did not enter? It's Basic 101 logic here, even Rhodes would get and ignore it which is what bothers me about your post. If she was somewhere else with Sollecito why is his bloody footprint in the house? Contradictory anyway you can turn it.

 

You don't discuss Knox's different accounts of her whereabouts, her conflicting alibis and the fact that her proving her innocence depends on Sollecito backing up where she says she was - and he doesn't.

 

There's just too much you ignore and now you bring up phones!? Amanda had a phone, she used it at a time she claimed she was asleep, she didn't hide the phone, did she not know that her mobile service kept a record of her calls in and out? What has it got to do with anything? At the end of the day we just aren't talking about very clever people here are we.

 

Discuss what is being discussed Brounmoney, how else will anyone take you seriously?

[Brounmoney]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are taking this seriously for now but tbh it's pretty difficult.

 

The phones? Where does that come from? Whose phones? Amanda's? Sollecito's? You'll have to explain I'm afraid.

 

Sincerely, I'm not going to debate it with you, I've laid out why the evidence is still overwhelming and you can't contest any of it.

 

Knox claims she was with Sollecito, if she is telling the truth then why does Sollecito deny it?

 

How did Knox's bloody footprints appear all over the house outside a locked room with Meredith's body in it which Knox claimed she did not enter? It's Basic 101 logic here, even Rhodes would get and ignore it which is what bothers me about your post. If she was somewhere else with Sollecito why is his bloody footprint in the house? Contradictory anyway you can turn it.

 

You don't discuss Knox's different accounts of her whereabouts, her conflicting alibis and the fact that her proving her innocence depends on Sollecito backing up where she says she was - and he doesn't.

 

There's just too much you ignore and now you bring up phones!? Amanda had a phone, she used it at a time she claimed she was asleep, she didn't hide the phone, did she not know that her mobile service kept a record of her calls in and out? What has it got to do with anything? At the end of the day we just aren't talking about very clever people here are we.

 

Discuss what is being discussed Brounmoney, how else will anyone take you seriously?

 

 

Well it looks as though either you want to make me look stupid or you missed a big key in your theory of Merediths's stuff being destroy. What was it that got some many people scared of Meredith's where a bouts? Her two cell phones were found. These are the phones I am talking about. Really not that hard to figure out is it? Again I will ask why did they destroy everything else and just toss those in someone's garden for someone to find? Does not add up to me, but maybe you still would like to play dumb with this.

 

You can keep making me look like I am not discussing things with you, but as I stated in my post you wrote a lot and I try to answer ad much as I could. And yes you compared me to Rhodes so please don't tell me you did not. I tried to debate, but your goal is to be right always and who ever disagrees with you is dumb.

[Loose]

Don't go off the deep end Brounmoney, it's just with you dismissing 90% of what cannot be explained away and focussing in on what has no explanation or never needed one it is odd and the coincidence is that this is what Rhodes does as a tactic.

 

Meredith's phones. Knox did some trying to cover her ass by phoning her numbers after the murder, to make it look as if she was unaware of anything being wrong etc etc. Later, in the clearing up operation they panicked and just threw them where they would/might eventually be found. Perhaps.

 

Guede stole them as "shiny things", thought he could sell them for money, later abandoned them? Perhaps.

 

Who cares now. Explain the facts first, maybe one day we'll find out why stupid people tossed a phone here or there.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Loose

[Brounmoney]

Don't go off the deep end Brounmoney, it's just with you dismissing 90% of what cannot be explained away and focussing in on what has no explanation or never needed one it is odd and the coincidence is that this is what Rhodes does as a tactic.

 

Meredith's phones. Knox did some trying to cover her ass by phoning her numbers after the murder, to make it look as if she was unaware of anything being wrong etc etc. Later, in the clearing up operation they panicked and just threw them where they would/might eventually be found. Perhaps.

 

Guede stole them as "shiny things", thought he could sell them for money, later abandoned them? Perhaps.

 

Who cares now. Explain the facts first, maybe one day we'll find out why stupid people tossed a phone here or there.

 

If you want to talk about facts then why did you bring up that they destroyed the evidence. No one can prove any of that. Those are not facts those are just theories.

 

The only solid thing you had was bloody footprints. I want go into why I believe those are there cause you don't care, and would say it was just my opinion which I think half this case. If the jury had to go by opinion cause there was no real solid evidence.

 

Oh and the reason I believe Amanda was pressured was because there was not audio or video of that discussion which in most cases there are. You can not prove that she was. Yea her dumb boyfriend threw her under the bus to help his case. Just saying.